1905
Comments (74)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
50
1776er 50 points ago +50 / -0

They did, and he flat out lied about it. That is, if Andy McCabe is to be believed anyway. IIRC then the Rat said he was joking like the host suggested here at the end.

20
HughGRection 20 points ago +20 / -0

I could actually see that, honestly. "What do you want me to do, wear a fucking wire while I speak with the President?" It's plausible.

8
peterstrzoked 8 points ago +8 / -0

Plausible, for that situation to happen? Sure, in the right context, that’s a good joke.

But you have to keep in mind, this is the guy who is conspiring with Mueller, literally the day after Trump fired Comey, on Rosensteins own advice. He then takes Mueller to the WH under the pretense of interviewing for the FBI job the day before appointing him special council?

This is the guy who is claiming it was a joke.

I’m not saying McCabe isn’t a fucking liar, because he is. But that doesn’t change the fact that its just as likely if not more likely that Rosenstein was brainstorming legitimate schemes to try and get Trump.

5
HughGRection 5 points ago +5 / -0

Oh, I know. I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt as to his allegiance in all of this. But this point may not be the best way to attack. As you said, McCabe is a dirty liar and could have been purposefully taking it out of context. There's no deniability when you walk into the oval office with a wire on, so I think Roddy Boy would have been smart enough not to go that way.

2
AllTheWayTrump 2 points ago +2 / -0

Roddy Boy comes off as thinking he's smart enough to get away with anything against anyone. So many times a good question would be asked and he'd get this smile on his face like "well Senator, let me show you how much smarter I am than you by giving you a bullshit answer"

2
DickTick 2 points ago +2 / -0

I think they meant more of the sense of it was tongue-in-cheek rather than a haha funny joke

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
peterstrzoked 1 point ago +1 / -0

I assume there is a reasonable explanation where they are, in fact, both lying.

I think that’s fair.

1
I_Love_45-70_Gov 1 point ago +1 / -0

With Communists, there is always plausible deniability argument to fall back on. The "Press" always push this narrative along once it pops up.

HRC has used this tactic for decades (and will use it again come Sept 9th); plausible deniability has not failed her yet.

The only way to get these fucks is to literally catch them red-handed, with audio and video, else the "Press" will fall in line, as usual.

With overwhelming damning evidence, the public is most likely to agree with convictions of the highest offices.

Preaching to the choir...just needed a little rant.

2
IllKissYourBoobies 2 points ago +2 / -0

Release Anthony's Weiner laptop.

2
EdisonHwy 2 points ago +2 / -0

bag of snakes....

plausible deniability argument

7
goodbeerbetterviews2 7 points ago +7 / -0

Did they? Completely missed it then.

3
Quietam_Unum 3 points ago +3 / -0

It's like that line in the Dire Straits song: "Two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong."

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0